M. Wang, W. Li, Y. Cheung, Oi Bun Christina Lam, Y. Wu, A. Kwong, V. Lai, S. Chan, T. Lam
{"title":"中国吸烟者减少吸烟与突然戒烟的简要建议:一项随机对照试验","authors":"M. Wang, W. Li, Y. Cheung, Oi Bun Christina Lam, Y. Wu, A. Kwong, V. Lai, S. Chan, T. Lam","doi":"10.1093/ntr/ntx026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aims\nTo compare the efficacy of brief advice about cut-down-to-quit (CDTQ) with that of brief advice about quit immediately (QI), as delivered by trained volunteers, without the use of pharmacological therapy, to outreach-recruited Chinese smokers in Hong Kong who intend to quit smoking.\n\n\nMethods\nSmokers (N = 1077) who enrolled in the Quit and Win Contest 2014 and intended to quit or reduce smoking were randomized in participation sessions to CDTQ (n = 559) and QI (n = 518) groups. Subjects in the CDTQ group received brief advice and a card about smoking reduction. Subjects in the QI group received brief advice and a leaflet about quitting smoking. All received a smoking cessation booklet and corresponding CDTQ or QI brief telephone advice at intervals of 1 week, 1 month, or 2 months. The primary outcomes were self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) at the 3-month and 6-month follow-ups. The secondary outcomes included abstinence rate as validated by biochemical tests, smoking reduction (≥50% reduction from baseline), and quit attempt (QA). The outcome assessors were blinded as to group assignment.\n\n\nResults\nBy intention to treat, the QI and CDTQ groups showed similar results as regards (i) self-reported PPA (10.6% [95% CI 8.1%-13.6%] vs. 9.1% [95% CI 6.9%-11.8%]), (ii) validated abstinence rate (5.6% [3.8%-7.9%] vs. 5.4% [3.6%-7.6%]), and (iii) QA rate (59.2% [53.5%-64.8%] vs. 54.1% [48.7%-59.3%]) at 6-month. However, the CDTQ group showed a significantly higher reduction rate than the QI group (20.9% [CI 17.6%-24.5%] vs. 14.5% [11.6%-17.8%]). The overall intervention adherence was suboptimal (45.4%), particularly in the CDTQ group (42.3%). Self-efficacy as regards quitting of smoking was similar between the groups at 6 months.\n\n\nConclusions\nBrief advice on CDTQ and QI had similar short-term PPAs. Longer-term follow-up is needed to understand the latent effect of smoking reduction on abstinence.\n\n\nImplications\nThis is the first randomized controlled trial in ethnic Chinese smokers to evaluate the relative efficacy of brief advice on (a) CDTQ and (b) QI as regards quitting. The two interventions showed similar effects as regards PPA. The findings suggested that brief advice on CDTQ may be as effective as brief advice on QI in smokers recruited in community settings.","PeriodicalId":19355,"journal":{"name":"Nicotine and Tobacco Research","volume":"42 1","pages":"67–72"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"27","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Brief Advice on Smoking Reduction Versus Abrupt Quitting for Smoking Cessation in Chinese Smokers: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial\",\"authors\":\"M. Wang, W. Li, Y. Cheung, Oi Bun Christina Lam, Y. Wu, A. Kwong, V. Lai, S. Chan, T. Lam\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ntr/ntx026\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aims\\nTo compare the efficacy of brief advice about cut-down-to-quit (CDTQ) with that of brief advice about quit immediately (QI), as delivered by trained volunteers, without the use of pharmacological therapy, to outreach-recruited Chinese smokers in Hong Kong who intend to quit smoking.\\n\\n\\nMethods\\nSmokers (N = 1077) who enrolled in the Quit and Win Contest 2014 and intended to quit or reduce smoking were randomized in participation sessions to CDTQ (n = 559) and QI (n = 518) groups. Subjects in the CDTQ group received brief advice and a card about smoking reduction. Subjects in the QI group received brief advice and a leaflet about quitting smoking. All received a smoking cessation booklet and corresponding CDTQ or QI brief telephone advice at intervals of 1 week, 1 month, or 2 months. The primary outcomes were self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) at the 3-month and 6-month follow-ups. The secondary outcomes included abstinence rate as validated by biochemical tests, smoking reduction (≥50% reduction from baseline), and quit attempt (QA). The outcome assessors were blinded as to group assignment.\\n\\n\\nResults\\nBy intention to treat, the QI and CDTQ groups showed similar results as regards (i) self-reported PPA (10.6% [95% CI 8.1%-13.6%] vs. 9.1% [95% CI 6.9%-11.8%]), (ii) validated abstinence rate (5.6% [3.8%-7.9%] vs. 5.4% [3.6%-7.6%]), and (iii) QA rate (59.2% [53.5%-64.8%] vs. 54.1% [48.7%-59.3%]) at 6-month. However, the CDTQ group showed a significantly higher reduction rate than the QI group (20.9% [CI 17.6%-24.5%] vs. 14.5% [11.6%-17.8%]). The overall intervention adherence was suboptimal (45.4%), particularly in the CDTQ group (42.3%). Self-efficacy as regards quitting of smoking was similar between the groups at 6 months.\\n\\n\\nConclusions\\nBrief advice on CDTQ and QI had similar short-term PPAs. Longer-term follow-up is needed to understand the latent effect of smoking reduction on abstinence.\\n\\n\\nImplications\\nThis is the first randomized controlled trial in ethnic Chinese smokers to evaluate the relative efficacy of brief advice on (a) CDTQ and (b) QI as regards quitting. The two interventions showed similar effects as regards PPA. The findings suggested that brief advice on CDTQ may be as effective as brief advice on QI in smokers recruited in community settings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19355,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nicotine and Tobacco Research\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"67–72\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-12-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"27\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nicotine and Tobacco Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntx026\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nicotine and Tobacco Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntx026","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 27
摘要
目的比较由训练有素的志愿者在不使用药物治疗的情况下,向有意戒烟的香港内地吸烟者提供“减少戒烟”简短建议和“立即戒烟”简短建议的效果。方法将参加2014年戒烟与胜利竞赛并打算戒烟或减少吸烟的吸烟者(N = 1077)随机分为CDTQ组(N = 559)和QI组(N = 518)。CDTQ组的受试者收到了简短的建议和一张关于减少吸烟的卡片。QI组的受试者收到了关于戒烟的简短建议和传单。每隔1周、1个月或2个月,所有人都收到戒烟小册子和相应的CDTQ或QI简短电话咨询。主要结果是在3个月和6个月的随访中自我报告的7天点流行戒断(PPA)。次要结局包括经生化试验验证的戒断率、吸烟减少(较基线减少≥50%)和戒烟尝试(QA)。结果评估者在分组分配方面采用盲法。结果在治疗意向方面,QI组和CDTQ组在(i)自我报告PPA (10.6% [95% CI 8.1%-13.6%]对9.1% [95% CI 6.9%-11.8%]), (ii) 6个月有效戒断率(5.6%[3.8%-7.9%]对5.4%[3.6%-7.6%])和(iii) QA率(59.2%[53.5%-64.8%]对54.1%[48.7%-59.3%])方面显示相似的结果。然而,CDTQ组的降低率明显高于QI组(20.9% [CI 17.6%-24.5%] vs. 14.5% [CI 11.6%-17.8%])。总体干预依从性是次优的(45.4%),特别是在CDTQ组(42.3%)。6个月时,两组在戒烟方面的自我效能感相似。结论简要建议CDTQ与QI具有相似的短期ppa。需要长期随访来了解减少吸烟对戒烟的潜在影响。这是第一个在华裔吸烟者中进行的随机对照试验,以评估关于戒烟的(a) CDTQ和(b) QI的简短建议的相对疗效。两种干预措施在PPA方面显示出相似的效果。研究结果表明,在社区环境中招募的吸烟者中,对CDTQ的简短建议可能与对QI的简短建议一样有效。
Brief Advice on Smoking Reduction Versus Abrupt Quitting for Smoking Cessation in Chinese Smokers: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
Aims
To compare the efficacy of brief advice about cut-down-to-quit (CDTQ) with that of brief advice about quit immediately (QI), as delivered by trained volunteers, without the use of pharmacological therapy, to outreach-recruited Chinese smokers in Hong Kong who intend to quit smoking.
Methods
Smokers (N = 1077) who enrolled in the Quit and Win Contest 2014 and intended to quit or reduce smoking were randomized in participation sessions to CDTQ (n = 559) and QI (n = 518) groups. Subjects in the CDTQ group received brief advice and a card about smoking reduction. Subjects in the QI group received brief advice and a leaflet about quitting smoking. All received a smoking cessation booklet and corresponding CDTQ or QI brief telephone advice at intervals of 1 week, 1 month, or 2 months. The primary outcomes were self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) at the 3-month and 6-month follow-ups. The secondary outcomes included abstinence rate as validated by biochemical tests, smoking reduction (≥50% reduction from baseline), and quit attempt (QA). The outcome assessors were blinded as to group assignment.
Results
By intention to treat, the QI and CDTQ groups showed similar results as regards (i) self-reported PPA (10.6% [95% CI 8.1%-13.6%] vs. 9.1% [95% CI 6.9%-11.8%]), (ii) validated abstinence rate (5.6% [3.8%-7.9%] vs. 5.4% [3.6%-7.6%]), and (iii) QA rate (59.2% [53.5%-64.8%] vs. 54.1% [48.7%-59.3%]) at 6-month. However, the CDTQ group showed a significantly higher reduction rate than the QI group (20.9% [CI 17.6%-24.5%] vs. 14.5% [11.6%-17.8%]). The overall intervention adherence was suboptimal (45.4%), particularly in the CDTQ group (42.3%). Self-efficacy as regards quitting of smoking was similar between the groups at 6 months.
Conclusions
Brief advice on CDTQ and QI had similar short-term PPAs. Longer-term follow-up is needed to understand the latent effect of smoking reduction on abstinence.
Implications
This is the first randomized controlled trial in ethnic Chinese smokers to evaluate the relative efficacy of brief advice on (a) CDTQ and (b) QI as regards quitting. The two interventions showed similar effects as regards PPA. The findings suggested that brief advice on CDTQ may be as effective as brief advice on QI in smokers recruited in community settings.